The lack of settings for some screen savers makes them less appealing, specially the ones that operate on pictures like GLSlideshow.
Please consider providing some basic configuration to the screen savers.

Ubuntu's philosophy is to offer a OS in as many languages as possible. Gnome Screensaver is not fitting with this philosophy, as you have to put your images in a "Pictures" directory if you want them to be displayed by the slideshow screensaver. I'm french, I don't have a "Pictures" directory, I have a "photos" one. A spanish user will have "fotos".

I'm OK to have simple applications, but it just simply doesn't work...

Why do developer need to invent "new features" in this example feature is again less is better, but this feature (no setup for screensavers) is hurting usability off screensaver, why did they even included changing off screensavers if less is better why not joust Off and ON? Actually I think that sometimes less is much worse. So put back screensaver configurations.

And there are screensavers that grab your desktop (or any other image): lack of settings option leaves them with "control picture" (see for example "slider"), which is 1. confusing, 2. far from professional. If we want to oversimplify, my suggestion is to preconfigure configurable screensavers (grabbing desktop image for example, this is probably what most of the users expect anyway)
(power users that can replace gnome-screensaver with xscreensaver anyway)

And still, leave at least an option to enable/disable specific screensavers - not only GL screensavers are resource-eating (Distort is one of the examples)

no, grabbing the desktop by default is evil behavior and considered a security flaw by many people, thats why ther last changes were made to xscreensaver-data and xscreensaver-gl, the image handling is already solved, please see the changelogs

I agree too, This is not acceptable for a screensaver manager. Considering the non-constructive attitude of the gnome-screensaver developer, we should really make this a big point as ubuntu users.
I don't think it's a good idea to start our own development, but we should really get this working before dapper releases. It is a severe issue: For 'simple' users screensavers are a major joy and have indeed relevance for a enjoyable ubuntu experience.

The current behavior of gnome-screensaver is inconsistent with the rest of GNOME 2.14, which gives the system administrator control over what the user can do with pessulus and sabayon. gnome-screensaver wires in the bare minimum: the user can either not have a screensaver at all, have the screen blank out, pick one particular screensaver, or let gnome-screensaver choose at random, with no control whatsoever over the set from which the selection occurs.

If the sysadmin is supposed to have control, then gnome-screensaver should give it to him or her. For many of us, we are the sysadmins, and our computers are at home, but gnome-screensaver takes control away from us!

At the very least this should be an administrator choice. Maybe the administrator has the option to give individual user configuration. This would certainly be wanted where I work and it would cause me no issues at home.

I really think a fork is in order here. I've heard dozens of people agreeing that this philosophy (as Linus says "interface Nazis") is wrong, but only a couple fanatics who say "you crybabies, real men don't even need GUIs, much less stupid screensavers or the right to choose how many cows they want bouncing on their screen! Just use Windows or KDE if you need configuration options!"

If you don't like options, don't use them. Maybe have an option to disable them. But I see no point in removing options just because someone has realized in a zen moment that options are for losers.

I think most users are going to uninstall the "debian-desktop" package that depends on this package and install the xscreen-savers and not care about dbus and all that stuff.

I'm a bioinformatics student and i've been planning to depend on the molecule screensaver to view and memorize 3d structures. What is the use of a screensaver without configuration options???
Is there any hack to get around this????????

> I'm a bioinformatics student and i've been planning to depend on
> the molecule screensaver to view and memorize 3d structures. What
> is the use of a screensaver without configuration options???
> Is there any hack to get around this????????
> --
> no 'Settings' button in gnome-screensaver
> https://launchpad.net/malone/bugs/22007

you can edit the /usr/share/gnome-screensaver/themes/molecule.desktop
file (add the wanted commandline parameters to the Exec= option)

even upstream wont get around to provide a gui option to adjust the screensaver settings, its just not implemented yet. some people subscribed to that bug should calm their wording here or provide a patch, just ranting wont solve it.

I just checked https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DapperReleaseSchedule and we're into FeatureFreeze already, so its too late to modify these packages... As an alternative suggestion that would satisfy the requirements of those wanting to adjust their screensavers, could the ubuntu-desktop metapackage be slightly modified changing:

this has nothing to do with the bug at all, if you want file a separate bug, but since our metapackages dont work that way, i doubt we can do it anyway. note also that xscreensaver was sceduled to be demoted to universe and in fact is only in main as a xubuntu dependency.

I must add my two cents to this and say that it is a huge disappointment that the screensavers configuration isn't present. Many screensavers are pointless without the configuration/settings, and many of the possible settings for the screensavers are what make them interesting at all in the first place.

Please bring this back :-( I miss the utility that was in breezy for settings/screensavers

A comment was added to Bug #34276 (a duplicate of this bug) by Bobby Feagin that should be added here as no one has mentioned it yet:

---
Another issue with the new gnome-screensaver. I always use the random screensaver mode, but now I can't pick which screensavers I want enabled. There are several installed screensavers that I don't like or cause problems, and I don't want them included in the random rotation. Since these are bundled together in packages, I can't uninstall the ones I don't like without hacking source code. Much less user friendly than giving us simple configuration options.
---

This is not really a separate issue however; when "Random" is selected, clicking a Settings button should bring up a box to specifically allow you to choose which screensavers you want.

The developer on bugzilla stated "Also, unless you are motivated enough to actually write some code or pay/convince someone else to do it for you then you are less likely to get what you want."

I don't really know how this sort of thing works, but I will pitch in $40 to get real functionality in gnome-screensaver ( I would help code but I don't consider myself a good enough programmer yet ), if that is what is needed to motivate somebody to fork or fix this problem. Anybody else willing to contribute? Is this just a stupid idea?

Yes that's an idea, but what I don't understand is this step back,
because in Breezy we were able to select whatever screensaver we wanted???

Jordan a écrit :
> The developer on bugzilla stated "Also, unless you are motivated enough
> to actually write some code or pay/convince someone else to do it for
> you then you are less likely to get what you want."
>
> I don't really know how this sort of thing works, but I will pitch in
> $40 to get real functionality in gnome-screensaver ( I would help code
> but I don't consider myself a good enough programmer yet ), if that is
> what is needed to motivate somebody to fork or fix this problem. Anybody
> else willing to contribute? Is this just a stupid idea?
>
>

"Most of the screensavers are useless without configuration. Would it be difficult to take the settings code from Xscreensaver and put it into Gnomescreensaver"

No, in fact I have made a program that lets you change your screensaver settings in xscreensaver and then updates the corrosponding gnome-screensaver .desktop files accordingly.

That way you get the functionality of xscreensaver while still being able to use gnome power-management. The main problems with it are

1: That it requires root privaleges to edit the .desktop files
2: That it cannot save seperate settings for separate accounts
3: It is written in java because that is all I currently know, and is poorly programmed because I was trying to get it done quickly and frankly I am not an experienced programmer.

So we could concievably keep xscreensaver-demo while still using gnome-screensaver, but it is a dirty hack in my opinion

If anyone want's to use this or make their own version of it here are the files.

As a relatively new Ubuntu user, I am befuddled as to why this is even an issue. As has been stated time and time again, many (if not most) screensavers are useless without config options.
I need to be able to configure how many cows, what my text says, what pictures to show...it's stupid to say that obviously, GNOME users would rather muddle around with config files than have a GUI. I like to call myself a geek, but I'm not opposed to a GUI - If it's so obvious that config files are the way to go, why even have gnome-screensaver? Why not just have the user find a list of screensavers and specify that in a config file? And why even have GNOME? Obviously, it would be better just to do everything from terminal, since we are so opposed to GUI's.
It's ridiculous. If I read the way-above linked FAQ...I have to create or find a whole theme to change my preferences? Ugh! If this is typical, I see why Torvalds was so anti-GNOME (http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/13/1340215). When I first read that, I thought "that's crazy. No one could be that stupid." Well...I'd say, if Windoze XP (drives me nuts because I can't configure anything) has the option for something, GNOME can definitely support it.

I'm working on a full substitution for the gnome-screensaver-preferences application. It still has some bugs and it cannot yet manage the screensaver's daemon specific features but it will let you tweak your screensavers' settings.

Modern monitors don't suffer burn, and nearly all computer monitors are "green" and set to automatically power down anyway, so perhaps the screen saver should be removed completely (other than the stub that shuts off power)

In these times, screen savers are no more than a passive game, they serve no useful or needed function.

If the developers will affirm their automobiles came from the dealer with all the radio stations preset and cannot be changed, I will accept that the screen savers not be non configurable. I would prefer no radio to preset stations.

If the developers will affirm that the web browser they use came with preset favorites that cannot be changed, then I will accept that the screen savers not be configurable. I would prefer no favorites to unchangeable ones.

If the developers will affirm that in the next release of Ubuntu, all the games will have fixed options, and can only be played in one way, then I will accept that the screen savers not be configurable. I would prefer...you get the drift.

If the developers of Ubuntu will lock down the directory tree so that users cannot create any new sub-directories, then I will accept that the screen savers not be configurable.

If the developers of ubuntu wish to position Ubuntu as a serious business operating system, they must eliminate all games from the installation, and remove all installable games packages. As long as games are included and others can easily be installed, then configuration for screensavers should be available. The screensaver is no different than a game. Note that if configurability has to be installed as an add-on package, business don't allow users to install software, so it will be non-configurable to them.

The reason why they didn't make this for so long time is either they don't want us to use Ubuntu (shame) or they don't know how to do this (which seems to be simple), or they have no time (5 years [first post 2005] may be not enough for them :D ). Or they just simply pis.. at us (shame again).

This is a significant user interface bug in my opinion, and the alternative (xscreensaver) suffers from a bug as well. I'd personally prefer to have xscreensaver called properly from the session menu and just ignore the gnome idiocy.

This bug has been marked as a secret show-case bug for some MS fan-boi (or Ballmer on his swan song) to pull out as evidence as to how kack "linux" (Gnome) is because you can't even configure your screen-saver.

As soon as that happens, the patch will be applied to steal away the thunder and undermine MS marketing strategy.

And realize that most of the reasons given are pretty much dumb reasons that only appeal to powerful entities who need help controlling their serfs and in no way relate to giving competent power over their own operating system.

Marc, are you saying now that Ubuntu won't fix this either? I know the Gnome people/person has his head up his @$$ on this, but now Canonical has joined him up there? I understand this is not high priority (though it should be if Ubuntu ever wants to compete with Windows/MacOS), but it is definitely a bug that should be fixed. Especially when replacing with xscreensaver doesn't work fully:https://bugs.launchpad.net/indicator-session/+bug/528094

Personally, I put up with the above bug rather than the completely useless gnome-screensaver. In fact, if xscreensaver caused my computer to burst into flames every time it activated, I'd still use it before using gnome-screensaver, on principle.

Listen, I'm really, REALLY sorry if the GNOME 'Vision' conflicts with reality. But this is reality, and the vision must fit into it; we have many screensavers that REQUIRE configuration; like the dozens of picture screensavers.. How about RSS screensavers? Sure, equip them with a certain feed, but to many people, we don't LIKE the default feed. Nor can we change it. Do you have any idea how sick I am of many of the picture screen-savers just loading the same series of Space photos?

This really is just silly. I'm all for not-confusing-the-user but I'm NOT too keen on frustrating them, either.

I see two photo screensavers. The first one is called F-Spot photos and uses the "Favorites" tag in F-Spot. The second one is called "Pictures folder" and simply displays the pictures it finds in your ~/Pictures directory. Seriously, what's to configure? If you want a different picture directory, just put a symlink in ~/Pictures.

I think the inability to set the preferences in a screensaver is shortsighted at best. Efforts should be made to discard the "won't fix" upstream and, perhaps, develop an in-house tweak to add the missing functionality. I won't comment on the Gnome team's reasons for crippling the functionality because IMHO they are to put it mildly, bozotic, nearsighted and ridiculous.

This bug was marked WONTFIX by the maintainer. I suggest alternatives be found, since the original maintainer no longer cares about gnome-screensaver and has an absolutist philosophy about screensaver preferences.

There are many, many screensavers in the Ubuntu repo, and many more on various websites. An example of an RSS Screensaver is FontGlide, Noseguy, Phospher....seriously, there are loads.

So what if I don't want to have my pictures folder as a basis for the screensaver? What if I would like to only show a subdirectory? Setting up a symlink is not intutive. Grasping for a clearly defined configuration panel is, I'd wager.

"Modern monitors don't suffer burn, and nearly all computer monitors are "green" and set to automatically power down anyway, so perhaps the screen saver should be removed completely (other than the stub that shuts off power)

In these times, screen savers are no more than a passive game, they serve no useful or needed function.

If the developers will affirm their automobiles came from the dealer with all the radio stations preset and cannot be changed, I will accept that the screen savers not be non configurable. I would prefer no radio to preset stations.

If the developers will affirm that the web browser they use came with preset favorites that cannot be changed, then I will accept that the screen savers not be configurable. I would prefer no favorites to unchangeable ones.

If the developers will affirm that in the next release of Ubuntu, all the games will have fixed options, and can only be played in one way, then I will accept that the screen savers not be configurable. I would prefer...you get the drift.

If the developers of Ubuntu will lock down the directory tree so that users cannot create any new sub-directories, then I will accept that the screen savers not be configurable.

If the developers of ubuntu wish to position Ubuntu as a serious business operating system, they must eliminate all games from the installation, and remove all installable games packages. As long as games are included and others can easily be installed, then configuration for screensavers should be available. The screensaver is no different than a game. Note that if configurability has to be installed as an add-on package, business don't allow users to install software, so it will be non-configurable to them.

Why... hey, that's just to bring back the old button that launched the settings config of each screensaver...

No matter what a few people believe, some screensavers have settings to configure, some people love screensavers, i do!

But we want to keep freedom to choose how our screensavers will work.

I wanted to use that GL slideshow one, but to a custom folder, i don't want to show all my pictures collection, just a subset of it... and it's too sad to realize Gnome is unwilling to give us the freedom to choose...

It is unclear whether this means "we don't have time for this" or if it means "don't even bother submitting a fix, you'll just be wasting your time."

I think I will have to look carefully at Fedora, since so many professional software packages are designed for Red Hat and Fedora is similar. Heck, maybe I'll just go with Red Hat. It must be better than Oracle Enterprise Linux--I can't imagine how it could be worse! It's a big pain in my rear to set everything up the way I need/want, but the earlier I switch the less painful I guess.

On 31/08/10 15:32, Marc Deslauriers wrote:
> I see two photo screensavers. The first one is called F-Spot photos and
> uses the "Favorites" tag in F-Spot. The second one is called "Pictures
> folder" and simply displays the pictures it finds in your ~/Pictures
> directory. Seriously, what's to configure? If you want a different
> picture directory, just put a symlink in ~/Pictures.

I used to use photo-screensaver when I could configure it to spend only
1 second per photo.
Now I don't use a screen-saver because I don't like the dozens of
seconds it spends per photo.

Seroiusly, Gnome is suffering of some sort of anorexia.
The project wanted to remove and declutter itself.
And that's ok.
But then, when it is ok, it started to cut more and more of itself. We say, hey Gnome, you are cute that way! but Gnome keeps telling, i'm still fat...
We need options. Simple options, yes, but options. We can't be forced to use something that is mostly an aestethic thing nowadays if we cannot setup it to suit OUR sense of aesthetics.

Also, Marc... is simpliciy, the kind of simplicity Gnome is looking for, to tell us to go down and edit the code of an screensaver? from my point of view that's not simple... and your answer was rude... something like "I'm not willing to code that, so go yourself and deal with the barebones of it"...

In my opinion... if you are not willing to enhance the user experience... why not to give this project to somebody else?

With the bug listed as "Won't Fix" this bug report does not show up in the list of open bugs under gnome-screensaver any more. You have to click "Advanced search" and choose to display "Won't Fix" bugs to see it.

Only 10 bugs that haven't had a fix released have more users affected (including "invalid" bugs)

Only 1 bug has more comments, only 5 have more duplicates, and only 10 have more heat. This is out of 636 bugs that aren't marked "Fix Released."

It seems this is a real concern among many Ubuntu/Gnome users, and something should be done about it.

Since Marc changed this bug to "Won't fix" the only comment we've seen from him actually included, "Seriously, what's to configure?" Those of us using xscreensaver get to see the wonderful configuration options for not only the slide show screen savers, but all the rest as well. If you install a more robust collection of screensavers, there will be much more to configure. Why not just completely remove all of them and use nothing but blank screen? With blank screen, there is certainly nothing to configure, so that would solve this bug I guess. If anyone wanted to use a computer with this strange 1980's-era technology of "Screen Savers" they could just install a real app like xscreensaver.

Back when I first started running Ubuntu the screensavers _WERE_ configurable.

So was the login window.

I could choose what application ran when I inserted a DVD, eg have it run dvd:rip rather than the small number of programs that Ubuntu has deemed an acceptable 'player' for DVDs.

I could configure dial-up networking, and it worked on all the ISP's I ever needed to use it with.

It's not just this bug, but this bug is one glaring example of the whole problem.

This obsession with "removing" all of the configurability is driving people away from Ubuntu. You're perpetuating the myth (by making it not a myth at all) that either Linux is greatly inferior to Windows because it has so fewer options, or that nothing useful can be done in Linux without resorting to a terminal.

Five years... Thank you, Gnome, for protecting us from the terrifying complexity of having options, and the potential difficulty of attempting to use software that has actual functionality. Where would we be without you to protect us from our own foolishness?

This whole situation is preposterous. It makes me glad Ubuntu is moving away from Gnome. Please Ubuntu devs, make a functional Unity screensaver chooser to replace the entirely useless gnome-screensaver!

Oh yeah, thanks for making to effort to do something instead of just complaining like the rest of us! :) I downloaded the deb, but I'm using 64-bit... I guess I should download the tarball and compile, etc?

@xfx: the last time I had looked at screensaver-settings, it wasn't working for the current release of Ubuntu--I'm glad it seems to be in development. This should get into the repository; is there any way to get this into the Canonical repository?

Is there any experienced packager that could take a look at the new x86/x64 DEB packages I created for version 0.3.4 and let me know if they need some modifications/additions in order to be considered for addition into the Debian repository?

I have gnome-screensaver installed, and I also had to install gnome-desktop-sharp2 after seeing an error referencing "gnomedesktop-sharp" when I tried to run screensaver-settings from the terminal. Once I installed gnome-desktop-sharp2 I was able to start screensaver-settings from the terminal and the GUI interface seemed to work fully.

However, I set the time to activate the screensaver to "1" (minute?) and did not see the screensaver activate. I tried both with and without gnome-screensaver installed. Did not try with xscreensaver installed. Also, the interface did not seem to get the cycle delay for randomly chosen screensavers to stick. I have not done a reboot or log out/in. Got work to do, can't interrupt that.

For now I am going back to xscreensaver, but thanks for the work you've done on this. I think getting Canonical to help might be tough because of Mono/C#. But certainly would be great to figure out what packages are required for this to work, and a quick overview of installation/use would help. I'd recommend setting up a vanilla VM under VirtualBox, for example, and seeing what has to be done to get this working correctly.

Of course this bug still wouldn't be solved since gnome-screensaver itself is forever completely broken, but at least there would be a workaround.

Is this set up on purpose to make GNU-Linux in general, and Gnome in particular, sociologically dysfunctional as to make Windows look better by comparison? And, yes, I _DO_ believe that this belongs in a technical discussion in a bug-tracking system.